I'm interested in going RAW. But before I do, I'd like to take a poll of how many photographers here are doing it.

I understand that RAW image files are like negatives in film vernacular in that it contains all the light information. It's only when printing, displaying, etc., that it's interpreted and some is lost.

One side of me wants to learn and use all the technology in the camera to capture the perfect JPG. The other wants to just be lazy, shoot RAW images, and manipulate them later on the computer.

Sure, some photographers use RAW as a crutch for poor technical skills... heck, it's saved my butt a few times no doubt over the last five years. But honestly, I originally bought a DSLR for the sake of having full control over my photos, from the process of shooting to the process of presentation. Why then would I let some team of engineers decide what my photos and end product are going to look like? JPEGs are probably "good enough" for most consumers, sure. But I wanted a good camera because I wanted to make good photos and I'll be darn sure I'm going to make use of as many tools available to me to that end.

I shot RAW + JPEG for about two weeks when I first bought my XSi in 2008. Then I realized that the JPEGs were just sitting on my hard drive doing absolutely nothing after I developed the RAWs. I compared MY developed JPEGs against the camera-generated ones, had a laugh, and I flipped the switch to full RAW and never looked back.

this is all interesting and this conversation has been done a few times, I can just about guess, what the regulars here are going to say.

Looking back over the last 7-8 years that I have dabbled in digital photography, whether shooting jpg or raw is part of developing your own style. Finding what works for you.

Part of that journey is software, I would be using jpg`s more if I would have to rely on Photshop CS3 or canon`s own dpp for my processing. Its just too much hard work, not as intuitive and quick. Its not since I have been using Lightroom 4, that I could comfortably say I prefer working with raw files.

But I still shoot jpg +raw, mainly because I can quickly sort out what I want to keep and then delete the rest. Loading and viewing a few hundred raw files takes too long.If I just email the photo, I mostly just use the jpg. Also, I save all our photos on a hdd that my wife uses to put family albums etc together. She is happy to use jpg`s.

There is another aspect to using jpg`s, I actually like trying to capture the moment as it happens and try and get all the parameters right. Form exposure, aperture, framing, awb, and the saturation sharpness contrast that is set in the camera. I think its made me a better photographer, makes me think about the whole thing more. Its also helped, when recapturing the scene later and I am working with the raw file. I have a better understanding of the process and the jpg is a good reference.

So for me, I still shoot raw+jpg, as I try and get as much right when I am shooting. I could often get away with jpg`s, as for web used its often shrunk in size, that in itself hides a lot of imperfections. In addition, its not all about me, my wife goes through our photos for family albums etc and she mostly works of jpg`s. For most things they are more than good enough.

Depends what you are doing with your images. I shoot JPG + RAW so that I can view the images immediately on devices like TV's and Blu Ray players, also handy for small file size quick uploads for sharing. But I also have the RAW file for any major PP or image manipulation flexibility at a later date.

Even shooting JPG does allow some PP, especially in camera, as the camera knows what it did to generate the JPG from the RAW in the first place, you can also use the manufacturers PP software as this will probably know the algorithms the camera used.

But to claim that if you shoot RAW you are being lazy is a bit of a sweeping statement, let alone condescending and rude!

I sometimes wonder if some people have completely lost their sense of humor. Most of you got it. So, let me rephrase the question: Are you using RAW because you're tired of practicing your camera adjustment skills in the field, where time is limited, and rather take your time at home on your computer to basically do what the DSLR was designed to do in the hands of a skilled photographer? Because it does take skill to take advantage of the new technology designed into today's DSLR camera.

Those of you who remember film photography know that much of the skill involved in making sure you have even a usable print must be performed behind the lens. White Balance is a perfect example: When shooting indoors with incandescent light, you know to use a blueish filter in order to accurately represent skin tones properly. With 35mm film, there's no LCD display nor histogram to allow you to review and reshoot.

When shooting RAW, in-camera White Balance isn't even applied. Even though the photographer is aware of the need to adjust WB for the ambient light, maybe even adjust Custom White Balance by capturing its temperature using a white/gray card, he'd rather postpone that adjustment until later, dismissing much of the technology built into the DSLR camera.

Although many here have expressed other reasons for shooting RAW, the 'lazy' question really boils down to this; Where are you more comfortable applying your skills: behind the lens or computer monitor?

But honestly, I originally bought a DSLR for the sake of having full control over my photos, from the process of shooting to the process of presentation. Why then would I let some team of engineers decide what my photos and end product are going to look like?

But to claim that if you shoot RAW you are being lazy is a bit of a sweeping statement, let alone condescending and rude!

I sometimes wonder if some people have completely lost their sense of humor. Most of you got it. So, let me rephrase the question: Are you using RAW because you're tired of practicing your camera adjustment skills in the field, where time is limited, and rather take your time at home on your computer to basically do what the DSLR was designed to do in the hands of a skilled photographer? Because it does take skill to take advantage of the new technology designed into today's DSLR camera.

Those of you who remember film photography know that much of the skill involved in making sure you have even a usable print must be performed behind the lens. White Balance is a perfect example: When shooting indoors with incandescent light, you know to use a blueish filter in order to accurately represent skin tones properly. With 35mm film, there's no LCD display nor histogram to allow you to review and reshoot.

When shooting RAW, in-camera White Balance isn't even applied. Even though the photographer is aware of the need to adjust WB for the ambient light, maybe even adjust Custom White Balance by capturing its temperature using a white/gray card, he'd rather postpone that adjustment until later, dismissing much of the technology built into the DSLR camera.

Although many here have expressed other reasons for shooting RAW, the 'lazy' question really boils down to this; Where are you more comfortable applying your skills: behind the lens or computer monitor?

Ah, we're going ageist as well as RAW-ist now, are we?!?

Yes, we know how hard done by people were in the age of film development. I've heard about that on the new fangled interweb.

What's wrong with getting things right in camera and still shooting RAW?

Or using the technology available to get the shot and move on, while the oldie standing next to you is still trying to contort his arthritic fingers and thumbs to set a custom White Balance and user defined ISO as the moment is lost? Or worse still, using an old rangefinder with the lens cap still on - oops

Part of that journey is software, I would be using jpg`s more if I would have to rely on Photshop CS3 or canon`s own dpp for my processing. Its just too much hard work, not as intuitive and quick. Its not since I have been using Lightroom 4, that I could comfortably say I prefer working with raw files.

Good to know.

maxjj wrote:

But I still shoot jpg +raw, mainly because I can quickly sort out what I want to keep and then delete the rest. Loading and viewing a few hundred raw files takes too long.If I just email the photo, I mostly just use the jpg. Also, I save all our photos on a hdd that my wife uses to put family albums etc together. She is happy to use jpg`s.

Also good to know.

maxjj wrote:

There is another aspect to using jpg`s, I actually like trying to capture the moment as it happens and try and get all the parameters right. From exposure, aperture, framing, awb, and the saturation sharpness contrast that is set in the camera. I think its made me a better photographer, makes me think about the whole thing more. Its also helped, when recapturing the scene later and I am working with the raw file. I have a better understanding of the process and the jpg is a good reference.

That sums up much of what I'm striving for: pushing myself to become a better photographer.

Yes, we know how hard done by people were in the age of film development. I've heard about that on the new fangled interweb.

What's wrong with getting things right in camera and still shooting RAW?

Or using the technology available to get the shot and move on, while the oldie standing next to you is still trying to contort his arthritic fingers and thumbs to set a custom White Balance and user defined ISO as the moment is lost? Or worse still, using an old rangefinder with the lens cap still on - oops

Depends what you are doing with your images. I shoot JPG + RAW so that I can view the images immediately on devices like TV's and Blu Ray players, also handy for small file size quick uploads for sharing. But I also have the RAW file for any major PP or image manipulation flexibility at a later date.

There may be times when you need that JPG before you get a chance to go home and process it; like you need a print and there's a Walgreen's right over there.

keystrokesuk wrote:

Even shooting JPG does allow some PP, especially in camera, as the camera knows what it did to generate the JPG from the RAW in the first place, you can also use the manufacturers PP software as this will probably know the algorithms the camera used.

I'm no expert, far from it. I shoot JPEG + RAW. The JPEG often are good enough to show people on the web or for family. If I want to modify the photo I always have the RAW version to make it look the way I want it to look.

I will still try to take the best photo I can and get things right when I am taking the photos. That way I can get the best of both worlds. I can learn how to take better photos and have greater ability to edit the photos.